Open main menu

Status:     Online

I have a few question for youEdit

Hi, I think that these articles Carmen Bueno and Jorge Müller should be merged into one article, since they are the same disappearance. Do you agree with me? This is my first of a few questions. Davidgoodheart (talk) 04:27, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi David. I'm not sure they pass WP:BASIC either separately or together, though I have not made a search for coverage to determine if they pass on some basis that would negate WP:1E. That said, I tend to agree that assuming their disapearance is what makes them notable, and it passes our guidelines, then they should probably be merged. You could be WP:BOLD and just do the merge yourself. But if challenged you will have to open a discussion. Or if you wish to be cautious and seek WP:CONSENSUS first you could open a merge discussion on one of the talk pages. If you have WP:TWINKLE enabled you can use the function under Tag and scroll all the way to the bottom. It will automatically apply the tags and open the discussion for you. All you need to do is fill in the rational for the merge. Also bear in mind it may be better to create an entirely new article about the disappearances as opposed to picking one of the current articles. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:37, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
I created the combined article the Disappearance of Jorge Müller and Cecilia Bueno, which I will do my best to keep expanding it, so I don't think that we need to keep the single articles anymore. Davidgoodheart (talk) 04:32, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi David I would suggest that you BOLDLY redirect them to the new article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:34, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't know how could you please do that for me? Also how can I now that the article has been created? Davidgoodheart (talk) 04:36, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Redirecting is easy. There are instructions in the link I provided. You just blank the article(s) you are turning into a redirect and then insert the code provided on the linked page. Anyone typing in the names of the old articles will be taken to the new one. I will handle it for you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:41, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:44, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
The article is progressing since being merged as I have added more sources and provided more information, and the expansion is continuing. Davidgoodheart (talk) 00:21, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Could you please add information to the talk page of Disappearance of Jorge Müller and Cecilia Bueno. It is no longer a stub is one thing that you can add. Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:49, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:38, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I have been working very hard upgrading articles, but I just can't do this all by myself, do you know anyone who could help me with this? I would really be thankful for that. Davidgoodheart (talk) 03:34, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi David. Are we talking primarily about the new one you created? Or are there others? -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:40, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
I mean ones that need expanding, not the ones that I created. I figure before I make anymore I should deal with improvements that can be made done now. Davidgoodheart (talk) 03:46, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────There are currently close to 38 million registered users. But around 250-300k are editing with great regularity. I suggest contacting the wiki projects associated with the articles you are working on and posting there. You can ask for help or advice. But in the end don't get too worked up over things. Do your best and when you have run up against a wall, move onto another project. That's what most of us have to do. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Please check out this article Disappearance of Jorge Müller and Cecilia Bueno now that I have added more on to it. Please let me know what do you think of it now. Davidgoodheart (talk) 17:46, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Having a look. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:59, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Not bad. I did some light copy editing but basically it looks like a decent start class article. Unfortunately given the dearth of information on their fate, heavy expansion is probably going to difficult if not impossible. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:19, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for you edits to the article. Here is the information needed for the red linkÁlamos. Able you able to convert into English then add to article? Davidgoodheart (talk) 18:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
The place is probably independently notable and would rate its own article. Unfortunately the vast majority of sources are going to be in Spanish and I don't have the necessary competency to translate them. But I think it is something worth suggesting, perhaps on WP:CHILE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
P.S. I appreciate the thanks, but it's not necessary to issue one for every edit I make. :-) -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:39, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Please check out the expansion that I have made to Disappearance of Jorge Müller and Cecilia Bueno. Davidgoodheart (talk) 11:10, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  Done Did a little copy editing but otherwise looks good. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:39, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Adding reminder to please check out Tres Álamos. Perhaps you can expand it's talk page. Davidgoodheart (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

PeopleEater143 using another IP addressEdit

PeopleEater143 is back using Editing recent pop music topics with the same snarky edit summaries, and the IP geolocates to the same area of the United States that previously used IP addresses do. Ss112 17:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Blocked x 3 months. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:05, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Also, found a sock of the EDM artist vandal, Phantasus Magician, who previously used the account ADCDL. Just from the name alone and what they've been editing, ADCDL24 is obviously a sock. Ss112 23:23, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Blocked indef. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
There's a new message on your Meta-wiki user talk page here and here. Would you take a look? 2402:1980:244:B8F1:B27B:8047:F943:C08A (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello. Can't you see? 2402:1980:8254:E5A6:2560:D90D:C21C:8E00 (talk) 02:41, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Revision DeletionEdit


I have a question concerning a deletion of a revision, are you able to assist with this matter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiro999 (talkcontribs) 22:43, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Handled via email. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:38, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Please guide me!Edit

Hello Ad Orientem!, I created 2019 Samoa assassination plot, and since I messed up by nominating "Argentina becomes first Latin American country to declare Hezbollah as "terrorists"", I just wanted you, if you wish to do so, to guide me through the following query: On September 30, one of the four defendants of attempting to kill the PM of Samoa will be sentenced. Should I wait the others to be tried, convicted and sentenced to nominate to ITN/C? Or with one is enough? Just an advice. Thanks in advance friend. --CoryGlee (talk) 15:07, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Cory If they are all being tried separately I'd go ahead and just do it now. However I'm not sure it will pass. But don't get discouraged if you have a nomination turned down. It's fairly common. Only about half of mine have been posted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:53, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks my friend!, I'll take the risk by September 30 lol. --CoryGlee (talk) 16:11, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Cory, remember that normally you can only nominate current events for ITN. Anything more than a week old is usually considered stale. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, but I may have written wrongly since English is not my first language, the plot originated in April but on September 30 the defendant who pleaded guilty will be sentenced to (i.e. life in prison), that's why I must wait right? --CoryGlee (talk) 16:35, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes. That would be correct. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Nancy NavarroEdit

See last comment. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There wasn't really a consensus to delete. In fact I was in the middle of adding more from there role on this national commission, President's Advisory Commission on Educational Excellence for Hispanics [1] when you deleted it. --evrik (talk) 04:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi evrik. I'm not sure how you define consensus, but from where I was looking that looks like a very strong consensus. Feel free to post any evidence of WP:N here that you think was missed in the discussion. If it looks reasonable I may consider re-opening the discussion. But it will have to be good. -Ad Orientem (talk)
All the arguments for deletion were based on the fact that she is only a member of a county council. Like I said, I was in the middle of expanding the article when you deleted it. I would appreciate it of you changed the closure from a delete to a redirect. Please make it look like this one, Andrew Friedson. It's late here. I'll attend to this another day. --evrik (talk) 04:30, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry evrik but I am afraid you are fundamentally misreading the argument for deletion which boils down to that she fails our notability guidelines for biographies and politicians. You will need to make a credible argument that she satisfies our guidelines for inclusion for me to consider re-opening the discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:37, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
P.S. I'm not restoring the deleted article or amending the close, however I do believe that this is a reasonable redirect. As such I went ahead and created it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:46, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
The same argument made three different times is voting, and not consensus. The subject of the article has national and regional offices, but these were not reflected in the poorly written article. If you won't restore the history under the redirect, would you please give me the code? I was working on the article when it was deleted and did not get a chance to save it. Thanks. --evrik (talk) 14:23, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
I am becoming increasingly concerned that you do not understand WP:CONSENSUS. Agreement represents consensus. When you have a half dozen editors all saying essentially the same thing that is exactly what consensus is. Holding a federal and or regional office does not automatically confer notability. Please explain which of our notability criteria Ms Navarro satisfies and how. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:06, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Please don't take offense as I went and restored all the links that got removed. As for consensus - there weren't half a dozen, most of the comments were superficial. Will you put the code here: User talk:Evrik/draft2. I'll work on cleaning up the article when I get some time. --evrik (talk) 17:52, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  Not done evrik mass restoring links to a non-notable person whose article was just deleted w/o any discussion was seriously inappropriate. No, I will not userfy the page until you offer some credible evidence that they may meet our notability guidelines, which I have requested before and which I am still waiting for. Until you provide that this discussion is over. If you believe I misread the consensus on the discussion you may appeal my close at WP:DRV. However, I must caution you as an experienced editor that I do not believe such an appeal has any chance of succeeding and may be viewed with annoyance by the community. For now this subject is closed. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Re: The City of New York vs. Homer SimpsonEdit

I want to let you know that I accidentally removed the "pp-protected" template while doing reverting the above page to the last best revision. Sorry. Lupin VII (talk) 07:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

No worries. It is not uncommon when fixinhg vandalized pages. As long as the icon is restored after the revert it's all good. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Bryan ChapellEdit

I was amazed to see Bryan Chapell deleted - I thought it would be a slam-dunk keep. Anyway, I realise I did not participate int he discussion - for some reason I completely missed it. Well, I was wondering if you could userfy it for me - I would like to work on it to establish notability along the lines that his writings and approach to preaching qualify him under WP:PROF #1. Thanks. StAnselm (talk) 10:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

There are delete !votes like "non-notable local church pastor" when he has a book cited 397 times on Google Scholar - something that almost always allows a subject to pass WP:PROF! StAnselm (talk) 10:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
See the extended treatments on Chapell's approach here, here, here, and here. StAnselm (talk) 10:40, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  Done See User:StAnselm/Bryan Chapell. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! I added six references and restored the article. What do I do about the talk page? StAnselm (talk) 20:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
I've restored it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussionEdit

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.----evrik (talk) 18:36, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Just to be clear. I didn't explicitly say that you declined the request because I was trying to not personalize it. I am not asking for the article to be undeleted, I just want the code. --evrik (talk)
When you ask admins to do something where another admin has already said no; that is relevant information that needs to be included in your request. I am going to AGF here, but failing to include that could be viewed negatively in a discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
I apologize for using the wrong forum to have the content "userfied ... so the content can be improved upon." I will repost the request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. --evrik (talk) 17:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Evrik, userfying a deleted page is not a right. It is something which falls under the heading of administrator judgement and is almost always left to the sole discretion of the deleting admin. I have already said no and explained the conditions under which I would reconsider. WP:REFUND does not apply here. Your only recourse is to go to WP:DRV which I have already discussed above. Until/unless you can produce some evidence that can credibly be used as an argument for satisfying our WP:N guidelines I am not prepared to entertain any further discussion of this. On which note; you need to revert your restoration of the links that I had deleted. That was not done because I felt like it. We do not blue link to redirects about subjects that are not independently notable. And bluntly you were wrong to have reverted an administrator action w/o discussing the matter with me first. Now it is time for you to drop this particular stick and move on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:23, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
We usually don't make people jump thru so many hoops for a simple userfication. Evrick has been here a while; if he wants to spend time working on an article in his userspace that may or may not meet WP:N when he's done (personally I think it's going to be pretty difficult, Evrick), because he thinks he'll be able to pass that test, why stop that? There is nothing stopping him from creating this right now from scratch in his user space, but then (a) why make it hard, and (b) if he's successful the we'd have to undelete the article anyway for attribution purposes. He's doesn't seem to be asking to put it back in the mainspace, so DRV isn't appropriate since he isn't challenging the deletion decision (i.e. removal from article space). Per WP:REFUND#Userfication of deleted content, any admin can userfy an article that's been deleted. When the risk of wasting time is all his, I don't understand the reluctance to userfy it for him. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:44, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi Floq I'm not a fan of userfying pages that were just deleted at AfD with overwhelming consensus that they fail WP:N and where I am not seeing any credible argument to the contrary. It kinda defeats the point of the AfD. However I am fine with doing so if there is some credible reason to believe that the situation is likely to change. I'm not seeing that here. That said, if you want to userfy the page go ahead. I am not inclined to belabor this any further. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
P.S. You're right about REFUND. I stand corrected. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:03, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks AO. I think the purpose of AFD is more to get it out of article space. I have zero concerns about your AFD close. I'll userfy, then, and make it 100% clear that he'll need to get either (a) your agreement, or (b) agreement at DRV if he ever wants to send it back to article space. I'll also make it clear that, IMHO, it's going to be hard to get it to pass WP:NOTE, to make sure he realizes he's risking wasting his time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:08, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Could I ask for a little help?Edit

Hi Ad Orientem, could you help me with a person who is using different IPs to make changes aginst Wikipedia rules? I noticed it on "Promises (Calvin Harris and Sam Smith song)" - could this article be protected from IP's for some time?,,, and maybe more is adding constantly all US Dance charts to the table, which is aginst WP:CHARTS. This person does not respond, just changes it on and on. I'm sure he added it to more articles, and I see on other articles there was also a genre problem. Could you help me in any way? -Max24 (talk) 07:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Having a look. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:15, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
I've protected the page for 2 weeks and blocked the two most recent IPs. Unfortunately this does look like a dynamic IP which means the blocks are likely to be of limited effect and the various IPs are far too spread out for any kind of range block. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
I understand. Thank you very much! :) - Max24 (talk) 07:22, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:CenturyEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Century. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

ITN errorEdit

Hi there, I think you inadvertently pulled the exoplanet discovery blurb while putting the Tongan president death into RD. Can you put it back up? 2607:FEA8:1DE0:7B4:4CCB:9F85:8B9D:9FC6 (talk) 03:42, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Yep. Good catch. I'm on it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:44, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Reporting and (talk · contribs) (talk · contribs) There is a editor might be using multiple accounts, for example the first IP made these edits [2][3] in the article Stoney, the second IP made these edits in the article just recently [4]. If you look at the edit summaries, they are very similar. The editor also added genres in the article Beerbongs & Bentleys [5] but the sources don't support these genres, so I remove them. The editor restore them with the second IP here [6]. Clearly here to be disruptive. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 09:34, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't look like their editing is intentionally malicious. As far as I can tell most of their edits appear constructive or well intnetioned. I have posted a warning over adding unsourced material but there is not enough to justify a block. Also it's quite possible that this individual may have a dynamic IP or they may be using some form of public access computer. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:04, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
That's not a excuse to use different accounts to restore your edits. I agreed the edits are not bad but the sources added by the IPs does not strongly support the genres, that's my problem with it. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 14:00, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
He is not using different accounts, he is using different IPs. And as I noted above there may be perfectly benign reasons for this. Some internet services randomly change IPs on you. And if they are stuck using public connections like a library, internet cafe, or McDonald's that too will result in editing under different IP addresses. I agree that a few of their edits were poorly sourced, hence my warning. But otherwise I see someone trying to improve the project and we need to be careful about biting potentially newer users. Maybe a friendly note suggesting they sign up for an actual account? -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Maybe I should have explain the genres are poorly sourced in my edit summaries instead of reverting without saying anything at all. Maybe a friendly note suggesting they sign up for an actual account might help, but this might be one of those editors who just ignore the notes. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 14:40, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
If the problem persists after suitable warnings, then other measures can be employed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:47, 14 September 2019 (UTC) has been making disruptive edits to Eusébio. It's getting tiresome. SLBedit (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

That looks like an ordinary content dispute, though it may be bordering on disruptive if they are editing against consensus and/or ignoring BRD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
I fail to see how removing a hatnote, removing inline citations by moving text, removing sourced content, etc. is a content dispute. SLBedit (talk) 16:45, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
I posted a formal caution on their talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:53, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
The editor is how using with this edit [7]. This editor is still being disruptive. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 14:06, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
I see they have added sources as well. Do the sources not support the material they are introducing? -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:13, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
"Congratulations" is not diamond. Trap, pop and country is not explicitly supported by sources. It's poorly sourced content and the editor silently revert my edits to restore their edits. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 14:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
I have posted a level 3 warning and protected the page for 2 days. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:36, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
That's good. Sorry for bugging you about this issue but this editor is starting to get annoying. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 14:40, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
I can understand that. One can be disruptive even when acting with good intentions. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:51, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Ad Orientem".